Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Double switching is right up there with the pearl clutching over the possibility of replacing your catcher mid game out of fear that the back-up becomes injured and you are left with nobody on the bench that can catch.

“Pearl clutching” Mr. Weasley? Are you sure that robe isn’t a dress? Ten points from Gryffindor!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

“I think it is too early to say that [there is a massive problem that needs addressing],” Manfred said Monday afternoon. “I really think it is too early to say that. In that group of seven, you have interesting situations that are not indicative of systemic problems over the long haul.”

Manfred noted members of the dismal seven do not fit the parameters of a tanking team. The Padres, for example, signed Eric Hosmer to the largest free-agent pact of the offseason ($144 million). The Orioles signed Alex Cobb to the third-largest pitching deal ($57 million). Manfred felt the Royals were mimicking a familiar down cycle after a successful run. The White Sox, conversely, are going through growing pains of a youth movement.

“The reality is we have very few teams’ owners who would tolerate several years of losing to get better,” Manfred said. In conjunction, Manfred said seven teams would not tank simultaneously because of “the limiting possibilities” of actually getting the first draft pick in that scenario.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I still believe that there's a certain # of owners who, while preferring to win, are content to just make money and be a team owner. The Astros gave them cover to do things on the cheap and sell it as rebuilding.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I still believe that there's a certain # of owners who, while preferring to win, are content to just make money and be a team owner. The Astros gave them cover to do things on the cheap and sell it as rebuilding.

At one time there were owners for whom their team was their main business. I think Charlie Findley and Bill Veeck might have been the last of them though. For those guys expenses mattered and it often was more profitable to be a team that might threaten than a front runner. Since those guy left the scene what you mostly had was billionaires buying teams who didn't care much about annual expenses because the capital appreciation rate on sports teams was so high. I'm guessing that paradigm is becoming played out and things are in flux again. Now we have more teams like the Tiger in Trusts and other complex ownership arrangements where annual expenses may be more of an issue again.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I still believe that there's a certain # of owners who, while preferring to win, are content to just make money and be a team owner. The Astros gave them cover to do things on the cheap and sell it as rebuilding.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

At one time there were owners for whom their team was their main business. I think Charlie Findley and Bill Veeck might have been the last of them though. For those guys expenses mattered and it often was more profitable to be a team that might threaten than a front runner. Since those guy left the scene what you mostly had was billionaires buying teams who didn't care much about annual expenses because the capital appreciation rate on sports teams was so high. I'm guessing that paradigm is becoming played out and things are in flux again. Now we have more teams like the Tiger in Trusts and other complex ownership arrangements where annual expenses may be more of an issue again.

I think in some cases, the White Sox come to mind, where not turning a profit is not an option due to minority owners being guaranteed a certain amount each year. They can't deficit the team like Mike Ilitch allegedly did for so long.

The other day I was leaving the Thursday game and went out a different exit than I normally do (since you may recall I was in a suite that day). There were a lot of Comerica Park employees. LIke 12 of them all standing there waiting to greet people. These were professional looking employees, not like Wal Mart greeters. My usher's been there for at least 12 years. That got me to thinking what the cost is to on a game basis just to operate the ballpark. Forget player salaries... there's a lot of other people to pay. Those jobs must be ok since I notice the same people year after year. My ticket taker is a guy named Richard. Been there a long time.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I still believe that there's a certain # of owners who, while preferring to win, are content to just make money and be a team owner. The Astros gave them cover to do things on the cheap and sell it as rebuilding.

I don't think Chris falls into this category. The deals referenced would not have done the Tigers much if any good. It is too soon to tell if he is willing to spend once the Tigers have built a decent core.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Maybe because he and DD seem to be such polar opposites yet worked together for so long.

What parts of the old org's strengths and weaknesses were which guy?

You just really started to feel like DD was a wizard with trades. I know there's ample evidence that he made some real clunkers, but you just got the feeling that he could always get more than you gave up. I know that's not totally true, but that's how it felt.

Avila being his underling it kind of feels like we just promoted from within out of convenience, and I'm left here wondering what he's every done to get the job.

I CANNOT WAIT to be proved a million times over that I'm an idiot as the Tigers march to a decade of dominance from 2020-2030.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Maybe because he and DD seem to be such polar opposites yet worked together for so long.

What parts of the old org's strengths and weaknesses were which guy?

Considering that Avila stuck with Dombrowski for over two decades, with 13 years served as Dombo's direct second banana, I'm going to guess that loyalty is a key attribute the Ilitches value. Whether you consider that a strength or a weakness is up to your interpretation.

I always thought the Tigers handled Porcello about as badly as a team could. Jeff Jones was the 1st guy in the org, including Leyland, who had the 1st clue about how Rick should pitch and how to coach him to get there. Personally, I believe Jones saved his career.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's fair to question Avila given that the team signed Pelfrey and Aviles. Seemed so unnecessary yet indicative of the old school mentality.

Sure they drafted some great guys over the years but do that job for 25 years isn't the law of averages in your favor?

But also, maybe Avila would have liked to have had a lot more data on a lot more players than he did when he made those two moves. But I agree Pelfrey was a reach, and the 2nd yr was almost certainly unnecessary. The Aviles signing didn't bother me, it's hard to know what's left in an older guy's tank - sometimes getting a good year from a guy like Aviles is just a matter of luck with health. Plus Mike had a seriously sick child IIRC, so there may have been unforeseeable complications and distractions there. The amount Ausmus played him after it was clear the tank was empty was a bigger issue for me.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Said this years ago but Porcello started out so early in his career and racked up the W's at a young age that it's not inconceivable he enters HOF discussion if he stays healthy and pitches into his late 30's.... that is if the voters still value pitching Wins at that point which they may not....